The Big Bang - Woo or not?

[Dancing David]

A fine summary

However I still think that on philosophical grounds it is legitimate to question this approach. Hoyles critisisms of BBT were philosphical in nature, thus why he developed the steady state theories. But even these didn't really escape a big bang either, or the big question. Where did this come from? How was it brought into being? Something out of nothing? Issues.

Questions without answers.

Of course, you can solve these problems by assuming infinity. And when you do this infinity starts cropping up everywhere in your models of the universe, and it all becomes a bit confusing, and overwhelming for thoses not confortable with the concept of infinity. People want to ask, where did infinity come from? but thats a misnomer. The nature of infinity explicity answers that question.

it is already there. especialy in particle physics and the DeHooft reconciliations.

I think that Hoyles critisisms are still pertinent to this day. And as i'm sure people here are aware, I endorse an infinite universe. For many reasons. And due to this i remain skeptical of BBT.

Sorry all philosophy is specualative.

I happened to stumble across the page about this issue on the 'null physics' (whatever that is, haven't really explored this yet) website. Which makes for very interesting reading, its essentially getting at the same epistemic arguments often made by PC proponents against the big bang. Both approaches are valid from a scientific perspective, they are just so amazinlgy different its impossible to say which one is correct and the other is wrong.

heres that site that peaked my interest: http://www.nullphysics.com/sampchap1.pdf






Unfortunately, I think you have to buy the book to read the rest. Which hasn't exactly raised my hopes for this 'null physics' theory. If it was so good then they should publish it in a journal or upload it to arxiv.

Some questions have no answers.

 

[Dancing David]

Good explanation I think DD, except for this bit:



The Universe is not expanding because of the cosmological constant. The cosmological constant was added because Einstein erroneously thought the Universe was stationary. However, acting on an expanding Universe, it can cause an acceleration. Hence it could be the solution to "dark energy".

Thanks, I am a lay person and may present the wrong notions.

 

[Tubbythin]

Its looking quite promising at the mo...

Soo... how close are they to break-even?

 

[sol invictus]

However I still think that on philosophical grounds it is legitimate to question this approach. Hoyles critisisms of BBT were philosphical in nature, thus why he developed the steady state theories. But even these didn't really escape a big bang either, or the big question. Where did this come from? How was it brought into being? Something out of nothing? Issues.

Since you're being more reasonable for the moment (mdma?) I'll address this. The evidence is overwhelming that the universe is expanding. Independently of that we also have very strong evidence that general relativity is correct, and one of the predictions of GR is that the universe must be either expanding or contracting. So theory and observation match nicely, and we can then use the theory to "predict" what the universe looked like in the past. The answer is that it was smaller, denser, and expanding more quickly. Eventually as we go back we come to a time (around 13.7 billion years ago) when the universe was so extremely hot and dense that our theories break down. We simply do not know what happened before that. Anyone that says this means that "something came from nothing" misunderstands the basics.

Of course this raises any number of interesting and profound questions about what came before. But you cannot just discard the theory because of those questions, or because it disturbs you for some "philosophical" or religious reason. That would be deeply unscientific - science is an evidence-based discipline. No one is really capable of imagining quantum mechanics, and yet it is correct. "Proof by lack of imagination" is not valid - the universe has no reason to conform to our ideas.

As with many other phenomena in the history of science, the discovery of the expansion of the universe and its consequences for its origin or early stages came as a deep shock to all concerned. There was very strong resistance for many years, but the accumulated evidence is simply overwhelming, and the objections and alternatives one by one dropped away over the years. Eventually you just have to accept what your measurements and well-tested theories tell you, even if you don't like it. That process often takes a generation or so, but as the old guard dies, so do their discredited ideas. That happened years ago with steady-state theories.

 

[sol invictus]

Does not the big bang violate the first law of thermodynamics?

First of all, total energy is conserved by the expansion of the universe. For example if the expansion slows (so the kinetic energy decreases), the gravitational potential energy increases just as as to compensate, much like a ball rolling up an incline and slowing down. So as we go back into the past towards the moment of the big bang, the energy remains constant.

But, you may object, couldn't conservation of energy (which is the first law of thermo) be violated right at the big bang itself, at t=0?

In order for that to be true, we'd have to

1) know what came before the big bang
2) find a formulation of energy conservation that apples to that, and
3) check that whatever it was, its energy was different than that of the universe that resulted from the bang.

We cannot do any of those things - we simply do not know what happened before a certain instant which is a little after t=0. So while questions can be asked, there is no contradiction or problem within the part of the theory we are sure of. Moreover I can give you many theoretical ideas which make a prediction for what came before, and which answer 1,2, and 3 in various different ways, all of which are consistent.

So the answer is, we don't know, but there's no inconsistency or paradox that needs resolution - just a set of intriguing questions.

 

[Tubbythin]

Thanks, I am a lay person and may present the wrong notions.

No problem. I'm by no means an expert (just a few undergrad physics courses) but the rest looked more or less spot on.

 

[Theophage]

Dancing:

thanks for that great explanation.....so the BBe theory does say that the universe may be infinitely old...but also says that matter and energy is finite. Is that correct?

The universe might be infinitely old, it might not be. The BB alone does not tell us which is correct. It is natural, however, if you believe that the universe is only a finite age, to consider that point at which the universe was it's smallest, hottest, and densest to be the point where it began. Also, IIRC, certain solutions of General Relativity had time itself beginning then, which would account for the finite age.

 

[anticonspiracy911]

Guilt by association with a picture.

No I didn't. You clearly do not understand what the fallacy of Guilt By Association is.


Guilt By Association goes as follows:

Person P accepts idea I.
Therefore, I must be wrong.

I never committed such a fallacy. It is reasonable of me to question your underlying motives with an avatar such as yours and creating a ridiculous thread such as this.

 

[Zeuzzz]

oh dear

 

[anticonspiracy911]

oh dear

What is your underlying motive for such an absurd thread? Do you hate science? Do you want there to be something that makes you feel special? Do tell please.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Since you're being more reasonable for the moment (mdma?) I'll address this. The evidence is overwhelming that the universe is expanding.

I agree that the evidence the universe is expanding is quite high. But, i still dont think that its set in stone. I will get back to this when the abstracts from the CCC2 conference are available online, as they rigourously put expansion under scrutiny, and from what i've seen they dont think that expansion is as completely conclusive as it is often portrayed. Which is what should happen for a theory that so many models are predicated on. Guess we'll just have to wait and see what points they come up with.

You can see some preliminary stuff about the conference here, starting with panel 1 which looks at the evidnce for and against expansion:

http://www.cosmology.info/2008conference/panel-1.htm

Panel 1 - Reality of Cosmic Expansion
Panel 2 - Origin of Microwave Radiation
Panel 3 - Quasi-Stellar Objects
Panel 4 - Large Scale Structure
Panel 5 - Methods for Selecting Alternative Cosmologies
Panel 6 - General Alternative Cosmologies
Panel 7 - Hubble Relationship Alternatives
Panel 8 - Dark Matter and Dark Energy Alternatives

Independently of that we also have very strong evidence that general relativity is correct, and one of the predictions of GR is that the universe must be either expanding or contracting. So theory and observation match nicely, and we can then use the theory to "predict" what the universe looked like in the past. The answer is that it was smaller, denser, and expanding more quickly. Eventually as we go back we come to a time (around 13.7 billion years ago) when the universe was so extremely hot and dense that our theories break down. We simply do not know what happened before that. Anyone that says this means that "something came from nothing" misunderstands the basics.

Of course this raises any number of interesting and profound questions about what came before. But you cannot just discard the theory because of those questions, or because it disturbs you for some "philosophical" or religious reason. That would be deeply unscientific - science is an evidence-based discipline. No one is really capable of imagining quantum mechanics, and yet it is correct. "Proof by lack of imagination" is not valid - the universe has no reason to conform to our ideas.

As with many other phenomena in the history of science, the discovery of the expansion of the universe and its consequences for its origin or early stages came as a deep shock to all concerned. There was very strong resistance for many years, but the accumulated evidence is simply overwhelming, and the objections and alternatives one by one dropped away over the years. Eventually you just have to accept what your measurements and well-tested theories tell you, even if you don't like it. That process often takes a generation or so, but as the old guard dies, so do their discredited ideas. That happened years ago with steady-state theories.

I do kinda agree with all of this. But, as i say, all scientific theories are falliable, and alternatives should not be mocked just because some people think they have already found the truth of the matter.

And I think this especially true in astronomy/cosmology, where it is very hard to know what is going on exactly so far away and with such limited data (only EM spectra), whereas other areas of science can be much more definitive.

to quote disney's fine publication pointing this out again:

The Case Against Cosmology - M.J. Disney

PARTICULAR DIFFICULTIES FOR COSMOLOGY AS A SCIENCE
1. Only one Universe.
2. Universe opaque for 56/60 decades since Planck era.
3. Need to extrapolate physics over huge distances.
4. Need to work with what we can currently detect. [But . . . ]
5. Local background very bright.
6. Distances very hard to determine (standard candles).
7. Observational Selection insidious.
8. Distant galaxies hard to measure and interpret unambiguously.
9. Luminosity Functions unreliable.
10. Geometry, astrophysics and evolution often entangled.
11. Physics of early Universe unknown (and unknowable?)
12. Human time-frame so short compared to cosmic.
13. Origin of inertia.
14. The singularity.

 

[Zeuzzz]

What is your underlying motive for such an absurd thread? Do you hate science? Do you want there to be something that makes you feel special? Do tell please.

Not even going to lower myself to this level.

You've cast your line, but you aint gonna catch a bite.

 

[Third Eye Open]

I have to agree that Alex Grey is awesome, and that you shouldn't judge someone by their avatar or screen name necessarily. My screen name could be taken to be rather woo-ish.

I think this thread is enough evidence to judge Z on, no need to reference his avatar.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Z: alternatives should not be mocked just because some people think they have already found the truth of the matter.

Just so that I do not misunderstand ... may a reader infer from this that you think
a) alternatives have been mocked?
b) the sole basis for attacking alternatives is (blind?) belief in mainstream models?

Z: And I think this especially true in astronomy/cosmology, where it is very hard to know what is going on exactly so far away and with such limited data (only EM spectra), whereas other areas of science can be much more definitive.

For astronomy, we have considerably more than "only EM spectra"!

Historically, astronomy concerned not only the stars and galaxies, but also the planets, comets, and even the Moon; today, something called planetary sciences has taken over, with astronomy now having a relatively secondary role.

And for objects beyond the solar system, we have the universe coming to us in the form of cosmic rays, neutrinos (e.g. SN1987A), some 'stardust' (interstellar dust grains), a modest about of neutral He (also from the ISM), and - possibly very soon - gravitational waves.

And that's a nice segue into the broader question: in the Z view of astronomy (and cosmology), as a science, what are the criteria for assessing theories and models?

Oh, and please, spare us the editorial about Disney's document ... if calling Scott's book garbage (for example) makes your blood boil, you should try hard to not make others' blood boil (Disney's document is anything but "fine").

 

[anticonspiracy911]

Not even going to lower myself to this level.

You've cast your line, but you aint gonna catch a bite.

You're not going to tell us why you started such an absurd thread? Because I guarantee you if you did any honest research on the Big Bang Theory you wouldn't have so many misconceptions about it, and you wouldn't have started such an absurd thread.

 

[anticonspiracy911]

I have to agree that Alex Grey is awesome, and that you shouldn't judge someone by their avatar or screen name necessarily. My screen name could be taken to be rather woo-ish.

I think this thread is enough evidence to judge Z on, no need to reference his avatar.

Except I wasn't judging him solely on his avatar. When I see someone with an Alex Grey avatar slandering a pretty well established scientific theory, and becoming so absurd as to question whether it's woo or not, you make the connections and have your suspicions on the underlying motivations.

 

[Zeuzzz]

You're not going to tell us why you started such an absurd thread? Because I guarantee you if you did any honest research on the Big Bang Theory you wouldn't have so many misconceptions about it, and you wouldn't have started such an absurd thread.

I started the thread because I have an opinion, and I want to discuss that opinion with people to see if its justifiable.

While my op may not have been the best way to start a civilzed debate, it certainly seems to have worked. You dont have to participate if you dont want to.

 

[anticonspiracy911]

I started the thread because I have an opinion, and I want to discuss that opinion with people to see if its justifiable.

While my op may not have been the best way to start a civilzed debate, it certainly seems to have worked. You dont have to participate if you dont want to.

Except opinions don't matter in science. What matters is the evidence. Judging by your posts in this thread, like so many other people, you have several misconceptions about the Big Bang Theory which smarter people than me have already addressed. Maybe you should of honestly researched the theory before you made a thread entitled "The Big Bang - Woo or not?" You know, it really isn't all that productive to talk about something to which you know nothing about.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Z: alternatives should not be mocked just because some people think they have already found the truth of the matter.

Just so that I do not misunderstand ... may a reader infer from this that you think
a) alternatives have been mocked?
b) the sole basis for attacking alternatives is (blind?) belief in mainstream models?

Yes. Well, not really mocked, but just dismissed without consideration. Like raman scattering (or CREIL) I posted on the first page. Sol dismissed it without even seeing what it was, he just declared it as crackpot without stating a valid reason why it is wrong.

And I do think that some people put blind faith in mainstream models. They just spend all their time learning about it as if its proven fact, and the possibility that what they learnt could be wrong to some extent never enters their mind. This is when people get defensive of theories and dismiss others with no valid reason. Which some are more guilty of than others.

I think that you've got quite a good overview of the alternative theories floating about on the net DRD, and you often give scientific reasoning to dismiss them, but this is not true with many, many, other people.

And that's a nice segue into the broader question: in the Z view of astronomy (and cosmology), as a science, what are the criteria for assessing theories and models?

Very simple. The least complex theory with the fewest free parameters that explains all the relevant data is the more successful theory.

Oh, and please, spare us the editorial about Disney's document ... if calling Scott's book garbage (for example) makes your blood boil, you should try hard to not make others' blood boil (Disney's document is anything but "fine").

But its cetainly an interesting perspective.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Is robinson banned?

hmph. This forum is missing somnething without him.

Anyone know the length of the ban?